determinations about who we're going to call -- >> and that's the point. that is a point. the fact that they used her in a primetime hearing and you will not rule out using her didn't rule out use of company on the witness side entrance did whenever you know she wasn't telling the truth, that says it all. that's the degree, the left and democrats were willing to go to get president trump putting on the witness stand somebody ugly nose is making it up to everybody knows that. you're willing to come you know how many times cassidy hutchinson was making a report? any idea, mr. smith? i do not. >> 185 times. someone that the whole country knows wasn't telling the truth and you were still considering putting her on the witness stand because you had to get president trump and everybody can see that. >> we better take a recess for vote. >> will resume essence votes,

back your time is have to. mr. smith, you guys can go back to the room that you were in. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible support big boats.

[background noises]

>> the committee will come order. >> thank you and this goes to the question of the hypothetical witness at the trial that didn't happen. maybe one of 2024 trump acknowledges he wanted to go to the capital january 6. history of lies and june 30 of the 22. testimony from two of trump biggest accolades and cnn, standby on the pushback. you very much. >> the judgment from new york is

recognized. >> over the past years republicans wasted on you. he says your totally compromised, hit and criminal fully what a nice monster you should be considered mentally deranged and thrown out of the country he called you a pastor the rules p chairman jordan has accused you of abuse of surveillance and accused you and your team of partisan and motivated prosecutions. despite the evidence you laid out in your court filings, president trump supporters are convinced the only reason you're holding him accountable as you have a vendetta against him. you have had a long and distinguished career with the justice department including serving as the chief of the doj public integrity section for

five years. you let investigations and prosecution of public figures and political leaders from both parties. republicans and democrats. can you give us a couple of examples? mr. smith: sorry about that. during my time as the chief of public integrity i investigated cases involving both republicans and democrats. the standard in all those cases was the same. follow the facts and of the law. it didn't matter what party you were in. it mattered the facts of the case. in doing that there were cases i brought against democrats and cases are brought against republicans. there were also cases that i investigated and did not bring against democrats and republicans. party affiliation played no role in my investigations. i can think of multiple cases of

prominent members of congress we investigated who were republicans who upon reviewing the law and the facts i decided not to go forward in those cases. the same could be said with people on the democratic side. i've always tried to follow the facts and law in my career. >> when it comes to deciding whether to pursue the criminal prosecution of an individual, what factors do you consider? mr. smith: the primary factors are the facts and the law. as a federal prosecutor and making a prosecutorial decision, you are guided by the federal principles of prosecution, which guide one not only to look at the facts and law but the federal interests and that is exactly what we did in this case as set forth in my final report. rep. nadler: does politics play a role in your decision to prosecute someone, to charge

donald trump? mr. smith: it did not. rep. nadler: what does it do to the justice system, what are the implications of prosecution decisions based on politics and not the law? mr. smith: i think it weakens the will -- the rule of law in our country because it weakens the mechanism for us to prosecute, among other things, corruption. when there is political prosecutions targeting people because they are enemies of the president, the department loses credibility and it can't do its job and all sorts of cases. rep. nadler: according to your deposition before this committee, it sounds like your problem was not determining if you had enough evidence to charge donald trump, but rather you may have had too much evidence and struggle to determine how to present a clear narrative to a jury. how would you characterize the evidence against mr. trump about

inciting an insurrection against the laws of this country? did you have too much? mr. smith: well, with respect to presenting the case that we charged, one of the central challenges was trying to present that in a concise way because we did have so many witnesses. some of the most powerful witnesses were witnesses who, in fact, were fellow republicans who voted for donald trump, who had campaigned for him, and who wanted him to win the election. this included state officials, people who worked on his campaign, and advisors. i will say, however, with respect to the charge of insurrection, we didn't charge that. as i set forth in my report. while i believe that courts have found that that was an insurrection and that there is a reasonable interpretation, reasonable prosecutor could interpret the evidence to support that charge, i chose not to do that looking at the facts and the law.

i thought the charges we brought were appropriate, given the evidence that we had. . >> thank you for your decade-long service. those who attack your team to protect donald trump ashamed of the most. >> will provide will to my left? >> you do you see people who are committing crimes, because they continue to believe things that just aren't true? that is paraphrasing ronald reagan. liberals aren't stupid, they just know things that don't happen to be true. if the president believed that he was cheated in an election, that there was fraud or in some other way a number of items led to his defeat when in fact he

should have won according to the constitution, does that make him a criminal? mr. smith: sir -- rep. issa: that is a yes or no, please, mr. smith. people are grappling with things that aren't true like socialism works or everything the republicans do are evil and everything they do is write. they've never reached a conclusion in a typical partisan case where we are not evil. you understand the constitution. do you understand the bill of rights that someone has the absolute right to believe something, whether it is true or not, and to advocate for something whether it is true or not? do you understand in addition to your oath to the constitution that's one of the things the first amendment allows for, isn't it? mr. smith: yes, sir. rep. issa: if you know that people have a right to opine,

lobby for, assert, do everything they can legally to ask for people to make different decisions, then why is it you saw a criminal conduct on behalf of a president who believed he didn't win? chairman jordan and myself have something in common along with a number of others. we sell wrongdoing and on january 6 we voted not to confirm two states because they had violated the u.s. constitution and how they selected who got ballots. yet, you are going to come here and say, i just followed the law? when you went after these people and you said, technically i can do that, you didn't see any selective nature or any separation of powers under the constitution to spying on the activities and conversations on the speaker of the house?

to what e would conversatio -- what end would conversations between the second in line to be the president and the president come on what basis would it be your business other than you believe there was a conspiracy without conspiracy is a basic premise? you do, like the president's men for richard nixon, went after your political enemies. maybe they are not your political enemies, but they sure as hell were joe biden's political enemies, weren't they? harris' political enemies. enemies of the president and you were their arm, weren't you? mr. smith: no. rep. issa: no? great. you spied on the speaker of the house and other senators and informed no one and put in a gag order so they couldn't discover it?

why did congress, a separate branch that you come under the constitution have to respect, why is it no one should be informed, including the judges as he went in to spy on these people that you mention that you were spying on seeking records so you could find out when conversations occurred between the u.s. speaker of the house and the president? did you inform the judge or did you hold that back? mr. smith: my office didn't spy on anyone. rep. issa: the question i ask you, mr. smith, was pretty straightforward. did you withhold that information from an article three-judge in the process of taking the records of the speaker of the house? mr. smith: we complied with -- rep. issa: will you instruct the gentleman to allow the witness to answer the question? i would like my time back. >> mr. chairman, you have done

that in the past. the witness has the time to answer the question. rep. issa: put your time back and allow me to ask this. i asked you a question and you were not responsive to it and i want you to be responsive to it. did you, whether you think it was legal or not, right or not, did you withhold the name of kevin mccarthy, speaker of the house, when you were seeking records on kevin mccarthy, the speaker of the house, or jim jordan, the chairman of this committee? mr. smith: at the time the gentleman -- chair jordan: time has expired but we will let your witness answer the question because it is an important question. mr. smith: we did not supply that information with the judge consistent with the law. rep. issa: mr. chairman, the amazing thing here today as we have an admission that -- >> the gentleman's time has expired by 34 seconds. rep. issa: how many times did

you interrupt me? chair jordan: the time belonging to the gentleman from california has expired. rep. issa: i will be brief. we have evidence that an article 1 -- [crosstalk] with that i yield back in disgust of this witness. chair jordan: the gentlelady from california is now recognized. >> mr. smith, thank you for being here today. earlier come the chairman spent time talking about cassidy hutchinson, who we know is one of many witnesses. it's important to note that there was testimony that she was told something by mr. orne. mr. coronado was of questionable veracity. we had testimony from a metropolitan police department official about an argument, big

argument, that the president was having about going to the capito l. the vehicle was delayed going back to the capitol building is the argument occurred. the fact that your investigation into president trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election is built on testimony from members of the republican party. last week the new york times reported grand jury transcripts from georgia that showed the same pattern in trump's georgia criminal case. george's republican attorney general testified that he told, and this is a quote, we are just not seeing the things you are seeing. the late speaker of the house, also a republican, testified that trump's fake electorate scheme was the craziest thing i've heard. senator lindsey graham, one of the president's closest allies come and his secret grand jury testimony told grand juror's, i

have told him more times than we can count he fell short. and then he said this, "if you told him martians came and stole votes he would be inclined to believe it." martians. that is senator graham speaking under oath. mr. smith come in your deposition with this committee, you testified, "our case was built, frankly, on republicans who put their allegiance to the country before the party." also that the president's closest allies are telling that his claims of election fraud are wrong. i'm wondering, can you explain what you meant in your deposition that it was republicans who were putting their allegiance to their country ahead of their party? mr. smith: yes. there were witnesses who i felt would be very strong witnesses, including, for example, the secretary of state in georgia who told donald trump the truth.

told him things that he did not want to hear. and put him on notice that what he was saying was false. these are people who knew how the elections were conducted in the states, and i believe that witnesses of that nature, witnesses who are willing to tell the truth even if it is going to impose a cost on them in their lives, my experience as a prosecutor of over 30 years is that witnesses like that are very credible, and that jurors tend to believe witnesses like that because they pay a cost for telling the truth. rep. lofgren: in terms of the grand jury testimony that has now been released, the fact that donald trump, according to senator graham, would believe martians stole the election, what does that tell you about trump's state of mind? mr. smith: that statement is consistent with what we found in our investigation and that -- in

that our investigation revealed that donald trump was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the elections. he was looking for ways to stay in power. when people told him things that conflicted with him staying in power he rejected them or he chose not even to contact people like that who would know if the election was done properly in the state. on the other hand, when individuals would say things that would allow him to stay in power no matter how fantastical, he would latch onto those. that pattern over time we felt was powerful evidence that he, in fact, knew the fraud claims he was making were false. rep. lofgren: who are some of the republican witnesses who told you the president -- who told president trump that his claims of election fraud were false? can you share that with us?

mr. smith: there were a range of witnesses. they ranged from people on his campaign team who had wanted him to win. were employed to help him win the election. they included state officials, state republican officials who wanted him to win, voted for him and campaign for him. ask him and his co-conspirators to provide evidence to support their claims and invariably they never did. it included officials, advisors, people he worked within the white house who he relied upon for important decisions and who he trusted in other contexts. we felt we had strong evidence from a variety of sources. chair jordan: the time for the gentlelady has expired. rep. lofgren: with my fellow californian, we are allowing the witness --

chair jordan: i have given the gentlelady 30 seconds extra. if the gentleman can be concise we will allow him to finish. mr. smith: to conclude, saying that we felt that constituted powerful evidence of his knowing falsity of his statements and furtherance of the fraud. rep. lofgren: i would like to yield back noting the presence of officers who work -- chair jordan: you don't have to yield back, you are over. the gentleman from texas is recognized. rep. gill: february of 2023, did you subpoenaed then speaker of the house kevin mccarthy's toll records? mr. smith: yes, sir. we did. rep. lofgren: november 2020 and january 2021, is that right? mr. smith: can you say that again? rep. lofgren: we are not going to delay like this. how many days after kevin

mccarthy was sworn in as speaker did you subpoena his records? mr. smith: i don't recall, but those two things had nothing -- rep. gill: 16 days after becoming the highest ranking republican in the house of representatives you subpoenaed his toll records. do you agree that that might reasonably be considered a violation of the speaker debate clause? mr. smith: i do not. i want to be clear that that -- rep. gill: you were collecting months worth of phone data on the republican speaker of the house come the leader of the opposition, right after he got sworn in as speaker all around the time of a major vote. that sounds like a flagrant violation of that speaker debate clause. i think most people agree with me. speaker mccarthy had no recourse because you issued a nondisclosure order insuring that neither he nor any of the american people knew about these subpoenas. is that right? mr. smith: the toll record, the noncontent toll record subpoenas, we did to that

we did secure nondisclosure orders. rep. gill: at that time was speaker mccarthy a flight risk? mr. smith: the nondisclosure order was based on concerns -- rep. gill: was speaker mccarthy a flight risk? mr. smith: he was not. rep. gill: why did your nondisclosure order referred to him as a flight risk? the court finds reasonable grounds that such disclosure will result in flight from prosecution. . >> a nondisclosure order and was don't have to be associated. >> the speaker of the house. mr. smith: what i was trying to explain is with respect to

a nondisclosure order of the risks are not associated. they are risks to the investigation. rep. gill: this is clearly in reference to speaker mccarthy. you are using clearly false information to secure a nondisclosure order to hide from speaker mccarthy and from the american people the fact that you were spying on his toll records. but i have more, so let's move on. in may of 2023 you issued subpoenas for toll records of nine u.s. senators and an additional representative? mr. smith: in may of 2023 we did -- rep. gill: and there are nondisclosure orders in conjunction with those subpoena orders as well? mr. smith: correct. rep. gill: so no one would know what you are doing? is that right? mr. smith: the toll records that we secured in the nondisclosure orders were consistent with policy -- rep. gill: you knew when you were doing that there was a risk you were violating

the speech or debate clause? mr. smith: the toll record subpoenas we secured were with the concurrence -- rep. gill: your own analysis as you know there was a risky work violating the debate clause. this is an email at the republican integrity sector to your team. as you are where there is some litigation risk as to whether to compel disclosure of toll records of the members legislative calls violates the speech or debate clause in the d.c. circuit judge from your own analysis. so, you did know? mr. smith: the item on the screen, the last sentence states -- rep. gill: we will get to the last sentence. you signed case law, the bar on compelled disclosure is absolute? is that correct or you didn't think you had to abide by that precedent? mr. smith: to be clear, this statement is not from my office. rep. gill: this is your

justification for those subpoenas and in doc order. this is part of the cursory analysis. but let's get to the last sentence, then. given my understanding of the low likelihood that any of the members listed below would be charged come the litigation risk should be minimal here. in other words, you are using a novel legal theory which you knew was novel and has never been tested by any court. you are not charging any of these members. no one will know about it because you issued in d.l.'s. no one will sue, so who cares? we are going to do it anyway. we walked all over the constitution throughout this process. chair jordan: the gentleman's time has expired. rep. gill: it is absolutely disgraceful. chair jordan: the gentleman yields back. they are not going to know because we are not going to tell them, so let's go ahead and do it is exactly what happened. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. smith, it's great you've

been allowed to come here and testify to the american public. is there anything that you would like to briefly discuss that mr. gill brought up on the reasons you needed those phone records and the limitations that might have been on you to risk the investigation? mr. smith: i would begin by pointing out that the email referenced was not a justification for my office. it was an email from the public integrity section to my office approving the subpoenas. the subpoenas that we secured we secured with a nondisclosure orders from a judge because i had great concerns about obstruction of justice in this investigation, specifically with regards to donald trump. not only did we have the obstruction of justice that we were investigating in the classified documents case, but i was aware during the course of our investigation of targeting of witnesses.

during the course of the conspiracy itself there were election workers who had their lives turned upside down and received vile death threats because they were targeted by donald trump and his co-conspirators. i had a duty to protect witnesses in this investigation. that threat to witnesses was only confirmed when we went forward in this case and donald trump suggested that one witness should be put to death and also issued a statement to the effect of, if you come after me i'm coming after you. in my mind, i can't think of a more direct threat to witnesses and individuals involved in that proceeding. given that sort of threat, it was in my view completely appropriate to protect the integrity of the investigation. to protect against destruction of evidence. to protect the witnesses in our case. rep. cohen: to be clear, you

didn't see any of that discussion. it was just the content, made a call to the vice president and vice versa, but nothing about content whatsoever? mr. smith: that is correct. a toll records subpoena gives you who a call is from, who it is to come and the link of the call. it does not tell you the content of what people were speaking of. rep. cohen: you felt that you had a case that was one you would win beyond a reasonable doubt a moral certainty. is there any facts that you would use at trial that you believe hasn't been presented to the public and the pastor has been misrepresented to the public? mr. smith: is there anything -- rep. cohen: essential facts that you had that would have resulted in a conviction of the president on the charges of which he was indicted upon? mr. smith: i think my report, the report of our case, the

final report summarizes the evidence, i think, in a way that is a fair reading of the strength of the case. rep. cohen: you have no question it would have been successful before a jury? mr. smith: my review of the case, i came to the conclusion that we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. we were ready, willing, and able to go to trial in the case. as i said in my opening statement that prosecutors can't control outcomes, but i felt confident pursuing the trial. rep. cohen: did merrick garland ever pressure you to bring an indictment or do anything in your investigation? mr. smith: no. rep. cohen: did anyone else in the administration? mr. smith: i was given the independence to conduct my investigation, and i came to the decision to bring charges in this case without undue influence from anybody in the department. rep. cohen: you dropped the case. why did you drop the case? mr. smith: the cases against

donald trump were dismissed pursuant to department policy. rep. cohen: the office of legal counsel said if someone is president you cannot bring charges against them and they cannot be held liable? mr. smith: correct. there had not been a case of this nature, ever, where someone was elected president and had charges pending. that was slightly different. we consulted with the office of legal counsel, and they determined pursuant to policy that the cases needed to be dismissed. rep. cohen: you were not pleased but had to follow the law, and that is what you did? mr. smith: we followed policy throughout my investigation. my job was not to set policy. my job was to follow it, and that is what we did. rep. cohen: i want to thank you for your service. i think that you are a great american and came out of this being someone that people can respect and look up to in a fashion that should instill people's desire to go into

justice, law, and government. you are an example of the type of person they should follow. chair jordan: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. >> mr. smith, there is something bothering me since your deposition. while you've got the position of special counsel. in your personal relationship with marshall miller -- let's go back to 1999 when you were working for the united states attorney's office for the eastern district of new york. is that when you first met marshall miller? mr. smith: yes. rep. fitzgerald: after new york, did the two of you ever work together again prior to becoming special counsel? according to the public bios for you and mr. miller you overlap at the doj from 2014, 2014 when you were the chief of the doj public integrity section and mr. miller with the chief of staff of the doj criminal division. is that accurate? mr. smith: i believe that is accurate come yes. rep. fitzgerald: where the two

of you social outside of work? mr. smith: i would say intermittently, yes. rep. fitzgerald: after 20 years of knowing each other, it is safe to say you were friends? mr. smith: yes. rep. fitzgerald: 2022, mr. miller is appointed the assistant deputy attorney general at the lj, the number three at doj. you call your friend to congratulate him and according to the deposition transcript, would you be interested in a position at the doj? mr. smith: i expressed interest if the right position came up i would be interested. rep. fitzgerald: at that point there is no discussion about special counsel, correct? mr. smith: this is some time ago so i don't have a specific recollection of these conversations. rep. fitzgerald: you were first approached about special counsel in that role before the 2022 midterm elections and according to the deposition transcript in

october of 2022 you fly to d.c., you meet with the ag and the deputy attorney general? mr. smith: yes. i flew to d.c. i believe in october and i met the deputy attorney general and i met the attorney general. rep. fitzgerald: in multiple conversations with your friend marshall miller he never tipped you off that the attorney general or deputy attorney general had you on the shortlist for special counsel? it never came up? mr. smith: again, this was sometime ago, but my recollection is i came to washington and i met with those individuals as well as the human rights section. marshall miller is the person who set that up. rep. fitzgerald: was he at the meetings? to tie this together, you have known mr. miller since you were both at usa in new york. you stayed in touch over a 20 year career in federal government. he gets a job with the biden administration and a few short

months later you are offered the role of special counsel. i am having a hard time believing that this is a big coincidence and there was not a back and forth on the special counsel. so, maybe you never received directives specifically from the ag or deputy attorney general. was marshall miller -- did he become a two-way conduit with the investigation with the doj? mr. smith: no, and i would not take direction from a political figure about how i would conduct an investigation? rep. fitzgerald: you never spoke with him the entire time you were conducting an investigation? was that i think you as if he was a conduit of information. he was present to my recollection at meetings briefings that he had with the attorney general and deputy attorney general during much of a special counsel. >> i do want to but he wanted you in deposition not because

your you're necessarily the best lawyer never met but because of the long-term friendship that you have with him. >> what i can tell he is i've been a prosecutor for 30 years. i've been an apolitical public servant for 30 years. i prosecute cases against democrats and republicans all the same. i've had in my view the experience necessary for this position that's what i i acced it. >> so he knew that you would pursue, me he had to idea that you would pursue exactly what the biden administration wanted, which was criminal charges against president trump. mr. smith: i think anyone who knows me well knows the idea that i would take direction from a political figure about how an investigation should come out, i don't think anyone who knows me thinks that's true. rep. fitzgerald: chairman

jordan, i think the next deposition should be with marshall miller at this point. chair jordan: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> while we are deposing marshall miller, maybe we can depose donald trump about why he chose his personal lawyer to be the head of the doj. on january 6, 2026, the fifth anniversary of the insurrection, the white house launched a taxpayer-funded website that attempts to rewrite history about what happened on that day of infamy. on january 6, 20 26, there was an insurrection at the united states capitol that resulted in a police officer dying the next day. another four officers dying by suicide in the months thereafter with at least 140 police officers being injured.

15 of them required hospitalization. we have four former officers as well as on-duty capitol hill police officers here today. i want to ask you about this website because the trump administration is using taxpayer dollars to lie to the american people about the events leading up to and of the events taking place on january 6, 20 21. for example, the trump propaganda site claims the 2020 was "stolen." mr. smith, did your investigation uncover evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that donald trump knew that his claim that the election was stolen was false? mr. smith: yes, it did. >> did your investigation uncover evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that donald trump publicly claimed that the 2020 election

was stolen from him while he privately acknowledged that he had lost the election? mr. smith: yes. we cited instances of that during -- in our case. rep. johnson: we see on the fifth anniversary of the insurrection the trump white house propaganda machine is still promoting the stolen election theory on this government webpage with a text box titled "fraudulent election, stolen election certified." the site has a subsection reading in part, "fbi entrapment operation exposed." mr. smith, did your investigation develop any evidence to support the allegation that the fbi and trapped insurrectionists into committing crimes on january 6? mr. smith: our investigation

revealed donald trump is the person who caused january 6. it was foreseeable to him and he sought to exploit the that it wo him, and he -- >> this also include -- accuses you of being a private -- biden prosecutor who "weaponized charges against mr. trump. " are you a biden prosecutor who weaponized charges against mr. trump? >> absolutely not. >> did merrick garland direct you because donald trump was running against joe biden in a presidential election? >> no. >> there are also allegations that president trump was the victim of -- an accusation that the department of as lawyers who prosecuted donald trump used "fabricated indictments and

rigged trials. did you, mr. smith, or the men and women, working on your team, work to fabricate indictments? show trials? >> no. we secured indictments from grand juries and we were prepared to prove our case in court beyond a reasonable doubt. >> did you use your appointment as special counsel to conduct a politically motivated witchhunt, scam investigation and prosecution of donald trump? >> i did that. we followed the fact. >> we follow the law. where that led us to an indictment of an unprecedented criminal scheme, plot the peaceful transfer of power. >> and those indictments have been dismissed. can they be re-brought or resurrected after this, after trump leaves office? >> they were dismissed without prejudice. >> so they can be refiled? and he can be prosecuted after he leaves office, correct?

>> i'm not going to speak to that. i can only speak to what we did which was dismissed the case without prejudice. >> on. website put up by the trump white house on the anniversary of january 6th is nothing more than a pack of lies. proves that donald trump is hell-bent on misusing taxpayer dollars in in a feeble attemo rewrite his criminal history, and history of what happened january 6th, 2021. with. with that i yield back and would like to, mr. chairman, offer for the record unanimous consent a statement from cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency released on november 12, 2020 that states a november 30 election was a most secure in american history. >> without objection. >> and also testimony from, i would like to request unanimous consent to enter into the record the september 24, 2020 testimony of trump's former fbi director

chris way who told senate homeland security, excuse me, the homeland security committee of the senate that the fbi had quote not seen or historically had any kind of coordinated national voter fraud in a major election. >> without objection. >> and last but not least, mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this article titled disputing trump, william barr says no widespread election fraud. >> without objection. the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. smith, on november 18, 2022 ag garland appointed you a special counsel. can you tell me about your swearing in or the oath of office that you talk after that? >> i do recall the specifics of it. i know i was sworn in. i don't recall the specifics of

how that was done. >> you don't remember who swore you in? >> i don't. >> would you agree that taking an oath of office is a legal requirement for the job that you had? >> i have taken oath of office regulate. i haven't researched what is required or not but i have done that in every government speed as it is required. the terms i earlier stated table, irregular, proper procedure yet in opening statement you said that we followed justice department policies and i sinemet the law as well. it strikes me as odd that you don't remember who swore you in, how you were sworn in. it's significant are we august when in a member every day. you don't remember who swore you in? >> i don't remember the details of of the of the city today. >> but you did take the oath of office before you got rolling? >> i think, my recollection is it was when i was appointed. >> it strikes me as odd that attorney general garland had you

we take the oath of office on 14 september of the following year. why did he make you do that? >> as i say to right now i do not recall. i know that there is the oath of office that i signed up with it was on the 18th, the day that i was appointed. i know that abrupt have do a second one. i don't know the particulars of why they asked me to do it again but in a speedy you signed on 20 november 22 of november 2020 but there was no witness, which i mean you which i mean you have to create a little odd that there is no way to send you took the oath of office. it would maybe make someone like me question whether or not you are legitimately doing the job until you finally took the oath of office. sounds like the attorney general had the same question i thought oh shit we have to have them sign this on the 14th day of of the following year. so why did you take the oath of office again on the 14th of september of the following year? when you say to the office in

november of 2022. why did you need to do it twice? >> my recollection is that i took the oath of office as you said it was the 18th of the 20th come and felt i was under the oath of office. i believe if you have in front think i signed a note speedy you signed it but there was no witness. that was supposed to be either notarize or a witness, and apparently attorney general garland thought it was significant enough to have you do another oath 11 months later. that, this is strange, right? >> i don't know why they asked me to sign it again. i don't recall ever discussing this issue with attorney general garland. >> that is just wild to me. i would like to yield the bounce of a time to mr. jordan. >> which one was the official one? >> i speeders which when

counted? >> i speedy i think that is what the gentleman is asking. >> i understood myself to have taken the oath of office which i assumed the job. >> how much, how much when he did you spend in investigating president trump? how much did your office spend? >> i do not recall as a pseudonym but i know that pursuant to i believe it's special counsel regulations reports were issued each six months in telling how much -- >> we gathered in $35 million. what i want to know is how much of that $35 million of taxpayer money did you give to confidential human sources? >> we know you get 20,000 summit. just come reported last week or how much more money to give a confidential people, people we don't know about with american tax money going after the guy we elected president? >> my recollection regard the

$20,000, which was not a payment from me, it was the approving a payment by the fbi to a confidential human source who was reviewing video and photographic speedy who is the source? >> i do not know the identity of the source. >> , and other payments went to this source or other sources? >> as i said it i do know the answer to that question. my role as special counsel -- >> $35 million and you're giving -- the country that who they are and you're giving the hard-earned money to these folks. the main question i have is why did you have to do it? we subpoenaed bank records from the rt come phonorecord from the present cocoas. you got subpoenaed for bank, people sitting in the front row. why did you have to pay people for information? i don't get. >> time has expired. >> you can answer the question.

the catch would like to know why you had to do it. >> my recollection and understanding is the payment, the $20,000 that i approved was for confidential human source to assist in the review of video and photographic evidence, showing people who were attacking the capital, attacking police office, , obstructing the preceding and see if we could prove that some of those people had come directly speeders that wasn't my question but my time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> mr. smith, i want you to have the utmost confidence in what you did. you did everything right. harry dunn, fannie hodges, michael fanone, they did everything right. these guys, but republican colleagues are a joke. they are wrong history will harshly judge then some want you to lean in today. you have nothing to be ashamed of. you did everything right.

i am so, these guys are so lucky they are not under oath because they would have to tell you what they really think of trump. they call him crooked. they call him cruel. they call him a scumbag. i heard you all say it. you like you're not under trump with the lights go on and the cameras are on you are tiny, you are small, you shrink. everyone remembers matt gaetz can opener after a committee hearing. he would laugh at how stupid he thought trump was. this is all a show and mr. smith, eurojust the latest fact that they have brought in. but they can't erase what happened january 6th. because we saw it with our own eyes. mr. smith, after the mainstream media called the racer by nevada we kept election did donald trump concede the election? >> he did not. >> the next what electoral college met and every state voted biden as a winner. the donald trump concede to ben?

>> he did not. >> short after that the last court case donald trump brought was stolen out. did he concede to ben? >> no. >> is it your judgment that only donald trump could have convened the mob and decide at the site of a simpleton january 6th? >> our assessment of the evidence is that he is the person most responsible for what happened on january 6th. he cost what happened. it was foreseeable to him, and then when it happened he tried to exploit it. >> you obtained indictments from a grand jury, right? you would to a grand jury and did something the trump administration has not been able to do as they go out of their enemies. their cases are being thrown out. you update criminal indictments against the president, right? >> that's correct. >> do you know who edward is? >> start? >> edward?

>> i believe he worked at the public integrity section. >> did you know he said that you when it comes to investigating sophisticated federal criminal matters jack smith physical standard? >> do you know who mr. james mcgovern is? >> yesterday was a prosecutor of liquid in new york. >> dino he said if you i have no idea what mr. smith's political beliefs are because he's completely apolitical. so are you a registered independent? >> i have no partisan loyalties. i don't, unless i'm registered as an not registered at all. >> are you glad you accepted attorney general garland request to be a special prosecutor, even though you've been dragged over political barb wire and your family has been subjected to death threat? >> i don't regret it. >> do you remember where you were on september 11? >> i do. >> what did you think of that

day? >> i was in brooklyn when that happened. i was at the command center that night. i worked on that investigation. i remember it pretty clearly. >> do remember we were on january 6th? >> i january 6th i was living in europe working for the state department for war crimes tribunal. >> what did you think when you watch you watching television at the capital that day? >> to be honest with you i don't recall if i i thought that dar later because of the time. cirque what you think when you saw it? >> i was shocked. i was shocked by it. i obviously being in europe and not following things as closely, i was not frankly up to speed on defense leading up to it. >> what shocked you about it? >> i had just never seen anything like that happen in our

country. >> i don't know if i have the honor to talk to you again. if i don't please note that i and my colleagues on the democratic side and even my republican colleagues when he speak privately have nothing but respect and appreciation for what you try to do and how you did it. you unlike many here are a man of honor. i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. smith, you appear today not as a neutral observer of the law but at one point you are what of the most powerful prosecutors in the federal system. with enormous discretion, minimal oversight and demanded that goes to the very heart of our constitution. you brought charges during an active election cycle, relet illegals there is that it never before been tested in context here you did so while disregarding long-standing department of justice policies designed to prevent prosecutors

from influence elections. you claim in your investigation you develop proof beyond a reasonable doubt that president trump engaged in criminal scheme to overturn the results in the 2020 election and to prevent lawful transfer of power. however, a few weeks ago in georgia fulton county election board official stated that 315,000 ballots were certified without required signatures on the type of their tapes. these signatures were required by the georgia statute. if not counted this creditor the state of georgia red and i will do not doubt the other schemes and many other states. you illegally appointed to serve as special counsel since you were not confirmed by advance and consent senate and stated as a student in the appointments clause. you also issued an indictment against him president biden's most formidable political opponent. the candidate was president trump and you issued a gag order for president trump during a

2024 election cycle. this was a major violation of president trump's first amendment rights and a poor attempt at writing since are the leading candidate. these actions were nothing short of election interference. nine senators including senator tuberville for my state of alabama and multiple republican members of the house of representatives had their phones cepeda. or the records subpoenaed. even then speak of the house kevin mccarthy one of the highest ranking republicans in the country had his phone records subpoenaed all for political gain. these subpoenas clearly violated the speech and debate clause. as john, of the digit public integrity section addressed this issue in an email dated may 172023, d.c. circuit president stated that the speech and debate clause, and the bar is this, are compelled come on certain are compelled disclosure

is absolute. these instances are not only the tip of the iceberg about you and your teams flagrant disregard of the constitution, mr. smith, your actions have changed and damaged confidence in our justice system. today this committee will determine whether that damage was the result of reckless judgment, political bias or deliberate misuse of authority. i would yield the palace and what doesn't i think to go back to the e-mail, put that up, e-mail mr. gill highlighted a few minutes ago. this is the justification from the public integrity section. look at the bottom for going and getting the phone records, toll records of members of congress. there's a couple things i would highlight. the first highlighted area, there is some litigation risk. they admit, there's some concern here. they send this, a copy to jack smith team. and then you go down later as the shigeo pointed out the case law is clear, a legislator may

intervene and oppose such use. so the risk is real. here's the deal. there was really no risk because we were not going to know. they were not going to tell us that they made sure the details because the way to the judge and got a gag order to look at the last sentence. last sentence. low likely any other members listed below would be charged, they're not good enough because when equity charge any of these guys. they didn't do anything wrong, and so, therefore, the litigation risk should be minimal. they are not going to be charged, we're not clinical after them, they, they are not, litigation risk is minimal and its minimal because frankly it's nonexistent because they are not going to know and we're going to make sure they don't know because you're not even going to tell the judge who we are giving the gag orders on. and yet mr. smith thought that was a okay. that was just fine. that was, the letter and the

spirit of the constitution, i find that i find that hard to believe. and you know why? do know why everyone knows it won't? because a public integrity section at the justice department has now changed its policy. you can't do this anymore. they change the policy but it was okay for jack smith to do it because we have to get trumpier we have to get the president. that's what this is all about. yield back to the gentleman from alabama. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i have unanimous consent request. >> gentleman from new york is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i i ask unans consent to enter into the record a transcript of the voicemail of president trump's lawyer rudy giuliani senator tuberville ungenerous six in which he states i'm calling you because of i want to discuss with you how they're trying to rush the string and how we need you republican friends to try to slow it down so we can get these legislators to get more information. >> without objection. >> the general and just back the chair now recognizes the jonah

from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the house judiciary committee is responsible for helping to ensure the rule of law. the chairman of this committee ignored the bipartisan congressional subpoena directed at him. his actions made it harder for this committee and other congressional committees to give witnesses and testimony and damage damaged the rule of law. before ask questions of mr. smith, i want to make a simple observation. how scared are republicans wrecks and talk about the epstein files. they are so scared that they have literally are calling jack smith, a distinguished prosecutor who secured foldable indictments against donald trump with multiple film against the republicans would rather talk about the criminality of donald trump and stealing, trying to steal an election trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power and the criminality of donald

trump and stealing classified documents, obstructing justice and about donald trump's associations with jeffrey epstein and this pedophilia ring. i did and this committee, this chairman republican to call a hearing asking the former justice of refusing to release 99% of the epstein files and by the doj is violating the law right now. i have questions, mr. smith, for you and thank you for being here today. my questions sent on interactions or lack of interactions between the biden administration and yourself. president biden or anyone in the bind white house ever direct you to seek retribution against anyone perceived to be biden's political opponent? >> we will leave this recorded program here and you can watch it on our website. here we go to live programming.